The first trailer is out for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, due out next Christmas, at last! Can't say I'm in love with the new Bilbo yet, but it looks incredible, of course! Check it out on IMDB or elsewhere!

Kind of too bad they're dividing it into 2 parts... But then again, it will be better in the long term. The battle of 5 armies needs some real play!

AssurnasirbanipalArchMaster Poster

Joined: Oct 21, 2002
Posts: 1534
Location: San Jose, CA

Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:24 pm

theDarkOne wrote:

Kind of too bad they're dividing it into 2 parts... But then again, it will be better in the long term. The battle of 5 armies needs some real play!

They are dividing it into THREE parts. Which is why I will not see it in theatres or purchase a DVD. I cannot support such greed and the only effective way I can make my point is with my wallet (the only way they will listen)

I was totally unaware of this until you brought it up, Assur. I don't like it at all, either. I was fine with 2 movies, but three, no matter what Jackson says to justify it, seems like a blatant attempt to rake in LOTR-like cash at the box office. That said, I don't go to many shows in the theater these days, and I am still greatly anticipating seeing them there.

If the quality is good, does it really matter how many parts? Nowhere does it say that you have to have one book per movie....

There is potentially enough material in there for 3 books I think...

DarqueArchMaster Poster

Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 2368
Location: Virginia

Posted:
Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:08 am

I don't mind there being 3 movies if they are telling a good story. I think it will become obvious in the first one whether they are making a genuine effort to tell the story or just filling it with frivolous junk to make a few extra dollars.

From what I understand, and have read the reason there are going to be three movies is because he is throwing stories in that explain a few holes that are in book. Like where Gandalf went when he left, apparently there was also a book that was just notes that Tolkien had put up or not published or something that he decided to throw in there as well. I am on the side that doesnt think theres a money making conspiracy, not that I disagree with those who are boycotting either. But if they are good movies and they stay within the storyline who cares how many there are? I for one will watch all three at the theaters, and will buy all three when they hit the shelves, and possibly any collectors editions that come out with them, and am totally pumped about doing so.

_________________Show me someone that has never failed, and i'll show you someone who has never attempted to accomplish anything.

The ConsortiumArchMaster Poster

Joined: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 8976
Location: on the golf course, in the garden, reading, traveling, and now Consulting

Posted:
Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:17 am

We are excited about the three. We wish LOTR had been five!

With all the detail, action, info Tolkein puts in his books - they can support a lot of visuals.

The Hobbit is....here. At least the first installment! I saw it last night, albeit in 2D at standard frame rate.

I've read a lot of pro reviews ripping it for being so bloated with all of Jackson's "in-between bits" and I can see that. He spares no time or expense fleshing out all the main parts of the book and then some. It's a good while before they even get out of the Shire, but worth it. Great job with the songs and everything, setting up the characters, especially going the extra mile to give each dwarf real personality.

The prologue with old Bilbo and Frodo was probably unnecessary but nice, and the whole history of the dwarves and Erebor and the coming of Smaug is spectacular but a bit much, too. I guess good foreshadowing to build up Smaug for the last movie, which I'm sure everybody will be absolutely expecting to be the best, most bad-ass dragon ever. No pressure...

Radagast the Brown, same thing, well done, but not really needed. It felt like they spent a lot of time building up the notion that the dark shadow has crept back into the world, Sauron is looming, etc. Why do you need to worry so much about it when those movies are ten years in the can?? Just get on with the story, please.

I've never heard him say it but I think Jackson must have been (or be) a total D&D junkie, because it felt like he was making the most expensive D&D movie ever at times. Goblins and orcs, and wargs, oh my...
Building up the story with Thorin's feud with this orc, Azog, and just generally over-the-top crazy, try to beat LOTR battle scenes, which were awesome yet just a bit too much as well. One thing that always irks me is when there's a massive battle and death everywhere, yet NOBODY has a drop of blood on them or their weapons! I hate that!

Anyway, overall it was well worth it if you are a LOTR fan, but I am still of the mind that the studio and/or Jackson decided to drag it out to three films because all they see are $$$$ and a proven, built-in, captive audience. I hate being one of the sheep but it was still a lot of fun, curse them! Even my two girls (12 and 15) liked it! I'd like to see the 48 fps version also, would be interested to hear from anyone who has!

Joined: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 8976
Location: on the golf course, in the garden, reading, traveling, and now Consulting

Posted:
Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:50 am

Stik, your "review" is just firing us up!

We have watched all the LOTRs and Harry Potters with one or both daughters as a "family interest" thing. (Usually the closest daughter in Charleston SC) The wife hates all of 'em and never goes.

Got a call from my daughter in Liberty, MO, that I have to hold off going until our visit there over Christmas - so the whole crew of
Gramps and Grandma
#1 daughter and son-in-law
#2 daughter and new son-in-law
two grandkids (7 and 10)
are going.

(Grandma doesn't know it yet, and will hate the idea, but will do just about anything for the grandkids.)

Remember The Hobbit is a 100 page book. By far the smallest of any of the Lord of the Rings movie. It would be a BORING movie aside from a very few parts like Mirkwood Spiders and the Mines which were well done and then the final battle at misty mountain.

You have to fill it with SOMETHING. I think it was a good idea to expand on what was known about the time during the hobbit. The council of the mages, the coming of Sauron. It is a prequel. I know it seemed like a 100% seperate book (and it was) but here they are touting it as a prequel and so need to set things up for the Lord of the Rings books so it fits all nice and neat.

Actually it's about 300 pages, Trip. Plenty o' material for one or maybe two movies, but three I just have trouble with.

I thought the casting and acting was superb as well. Martin Freeman is spot-on as Bilbo, Sir Ian Mckellan goes without saying. Andy Sirkus as gollum was one of the highlights for sure, the effects were awesome. Nuff said.